Worship Project #2

• Project #1
• Project #2
• Project #3
• Project #4

I must confess having come to this book (and, by extension, this assignment) with somewhat of a bias. I have heard and read Ms. Dawn before, and have been thoroughly delighted, admonished, saddened, and encouraged by her insights. Her thoughts on worship--and the nature of the Church in general (that is, beyond its primary work of worship)--are coherent and credible, and she is careful to present proper biblical foundations for her arguments.

I must also confess that, while I agree with practically all she has said, it has been in my personal history more of an intellectual agreement than a practiced one. One of her first comments, "the entire reason for our worship is that God deserves it," is undeniable; however, I cannot honestly say that that concept has always been my motivation. As a music minister (or worship leader, whatever the terminology), more often than I care to admit my primary motivation has been to program a thematically and musically sound production. I would pat myself on the back for my musical ingenuity, but quite frankly the reverence, awe, and love of God has not always been the "main point" for which I was personally striving. I would give intellectual assent, and would encourage those whom I would lead in worship to pursue the worship of God for His glory, but my own motivations were for my own artistic gratification. Yes, God deserves my worship, but very often I have done it for my own gratification.

A few remarks from her book have really gotten me thinking hard about matters of worship and have helped me "codify" my philosophy of it a bit more exhaustively. In chapter 5 ("Worship for Postmodern Times"), Dawn gives a list of seven questions to ask about the composition and motivation of worship. The crux of her argument pertains to our knowledge and training in the scriptural issues of worship. Indeed, it is the focus of the entire book. I was especially encouraged (or perhaps affirmed is a better word) with her treatment of worship as "fine cuisine" or "Burger King." This analogy, while not exhaustive, helps paint an adequate image of what kinds of worship elements we are using in church and, more importantly, why. Too often it is a matter of "easy to do, easy to consume" rather than a painstaking, deliberate, careful preparation of a service. The issue is, of course, who is the service for? Many would give an intellectual nod to focus on God, but if we were honest a sad and disturbing percentage would probably have to admit that we are most interested in seeing ourselves served.

I want to be careful with my comments here: I am very aware that just as there is fault in preparing "quick and dirty" worship that is ultimately for consumption by a willfully ignorant and/or spiritually immature mass, there is also the temptation for those who desire to "serve up only the finest" to be guilty of exactly the same thing. (This is part of what I was talking about earlier when I described my own faulty motivations.) The pursuit of excellence, when it--rather than the glory of God--becomes its own end, is as pointless, empty, and lacking (not to mention flavorless and disgusting to God) as that which is done poorly. Perhaps the matter can be distilled thus: "Do everything you do for the sake of God (Mark 12:30); and while you're noticing for whom you're doing it, do your very best (Eccles. 9:10)!"

Then she picks on my television habit: "Let's face the question squarely: If television is causing people to be dissatisfied with the worship of our churches, should we change worship to be more like television--or should the splendor of our worship cause people to ask better questions about television?" In this context, Dawn is talking about using media outlets of "worship" to replace physical community. I don't have a personal problem with this particular point; if I'm channel-surfing, I never get hooked on religious broadcasting. (It usually strikes me as affected and ineffectual.) There is a finer point she is making, though--even if she doesn't specifically mean to here. Worship is what we are doing with our lives not just in community, but in our private moments. When I am watching television, excusing most of the garbage I am seeing by some "spiritual filter" I think I have, the periodic conviction that I could be doing something better with my time--namely, prayer and devotion--is quickly and ceremoniously shuffled off. Only later, when I am actually engrossed in something meaningful, does it occur to me that I missed a divine opportunity to meet with my God in a private worship opportunity.

Television isn't the only such distraction, however. She applies her same assertions to use of the Internet (hunting for some "online congregation"). But this medium too robs me of many opportunities to converse with my Lord; indeed, it distracts me from accomplishing much of anything, because I am always excusing my surfing as "mentally engaging." I would be interested to see the results of any test done on brain activity among those who spend their time online rather than reading. Or, better, praying. Might it also return the same kinds of numbers as television addiction?

The gist of the book is this: "What is worship for? Us or Someone Else?" As long as we as the Church perceive ourselves to be the primary beneficiaries of "worship," we can expect no real benefits at all. God cannot honor our narcissistic gesticulations in stroking our own tastes and egos just because we pay him lip service and say that we're doing this all "in Your Name." I am starting to wonder if perhaps the vast majority of contemporary Christian music isn't as guilty as secular music in deflecting our focus from on what (Whom) it ought to be. When we find ourselves confronted with doing our Christian duties, we discover that we do not have the spiritual "undergirding" necessary--and we wonder why! We've entertained ourselves out of being effective bearers of the Light, from looking for ways to shine brilliantly in a dark world to meeting in private spots with all the other little "lights" to shine at each other for our own amusement and expect The Light to be impressed and "bless us." That is why our churches are not growing: not simply because we aren't going out, but because self-absorption is something the world already has. Why should they come to us if it seems that's all we are offering?

Another deep remark: "Christ has already changed us. He has already set us free, healed our blind spirits, opened our ears. And now Paul reminds us, ÔThis is what we are: we are this body!'" This caught my attention on two points: first, the remark that Christ "has already changed us." We are supposed to be "new creations" (1 Cor. 5:17), but to what extent this transformation occurs seems to be in debate. While there are a few who outwardly embrace the fallacy of "easy-believism," many of those of us who decry them deep down believe exactly that. At least, we aren't allowing ourselves to become "new creations." Have old ways really passed away, replaced by new ones?

The second point regards the last clause: "we are this body." Too often, I'm afraid, we think of "doing" the body as if it were an effort rather than a state of "belonging" or ownership, and that not our own.

"I dare not depend on feelings to judge what God is doing with me." This remark is for everyone embroiled in the worship wars, not just for one side or another. To some extent, all of us caught up in the matter base our thoughts and preferences to how we feel about them, rather than what the Word says about them. And the fact that it says nothing about "what style your worship should be" seems to me to mean that there is not to be any confusion or strife over it. If we are really worshiping, methodology or style will be irrelevant. Of course I have feelings about this kind of music or that. But to try to make a point one way or another based on my tastes deflects the true target of the issue. What I personally feel or think is always secondary to the issue of whether or not God is honored and glorified. That is what worship is, and so long as I am seeking to please Him, I am available and eligible for both His maturing me and His acceptance of my service.

Dawn also goes into the matter of splitting services based on stylistic preferences. This is more than a "pet peeve" of mine; I'm trying to actually put into words exactly how I would approach any pastor or search committee of a prospective church where this is practiced. Ultimately, this is a heresy of idolatry. Are we not doing the Devil's work by "amicably" causing our congregations to split? Use of the excuse, "we're doing this to accommodate more people" is a cop-out. The real matter is, "We want our people to enjoy themselves." I don't begrudge people the opportunity to find worship pleasant and enjoyable, but I can't find where Scripture says it's obligated to us. The only person who must be pleased by our worship is God; it is for Him alone, or it is not worship at all.

I served at a church in Mesquite that had two services, using two different "worship styles." The irony is that the stylistic difference was created to appease the musicians! There were several in the church that preferred (but were not hard-nosed regarding) traditional music; the rest were amicable to either, with a slight majority expressing an enjoyment of contemporary music. The people who made the must noise--and the people who insisted on having their way--were the members of a self-appointed praise band who would not worship there if there was not a completely contemporary service; also, the pastor very much preferred such a worship style. When I began serving at the church, I tried to work within this system; eventually, however, the work load (on top of school) became unreasonable, and with the pastor's approval I used the same blended service in both worship hours.

Ironically, this transition had little effect on the constituency of the attendance in either service. I lost two praise team leaders by going with the same blended program for both services; I am not aware of anyone else who left the church for that reason. The second service, the more traditional of the two, ironically always had better numbers. (I suppose this might have had as much to do with the convenience of the hour as with a worship style preference.)

The more I discussed the matter with the pastor (even after everything had been "ironed out" and the services remained identical for as long as I was there), the more apparent it became that the differentiated services were created in response to what a few people in the church wanted, rather than what was really good for the church. I can see how some would argue that creating two worship services will make the whole worship controversy within the Church "go away," but this is just sweeping the problem under the rug. The main issue has not been addressed: the worship is for God's enjoyment, not ours. If a church split were to be the result (which, in this case, it probably would not have been), then that is what needed to happen.

The pursuit of worship for any other reason that valuing God's glory (even if it's for the supposedly-legitimate purpose of evangelism) is a red herring;. The worship service per se is not for unbelievers (though they must be made welcome in all other ways). This is the time where we come to God, with all our faults, making the best praise, adoration, confession, repentance, and thanksgiving possible.

Something jumped out to me when I read the following: "Many leaders in churches throughout the country and in every denomination are suffering from the results of this bad advice to have two kinds of worship in order to appeal to the world." I was struck by the similarity of this situation to that which Peter faced, as Paul gives account of it in Galatians 2. He confronted Peter openly for being "two-faced" with his new exclusive attention to some visiting Jews "from James" while ignoring the Gentiles with whom he had been fellowshipping. This resulted in a schism that continues to this day: pastors who insist on two different worship styles cannot--and will not--look to either side like he is loyal to them, however much he may try to appease both. I am not saying that Paul was at fault here; on the contrary, it was Peter who was in the wrong by choosing a side. The point is that "sides" should never have been made, then or now.

In her lists in chapter 25, "In Praise of the Harder Way," Dawn makes this point: "It is true that many of the songs projected on worship screens foster memorization of Scripture, but usually these songs are composed of only one or two Scripture verses, and they are often taken out of context." I am not so much interested in the issues regarding use of screens; I am more concerned about the latter part of the statement. Far too much of our contemporary music is useless: it does not teach, it does not admonish, it does not correct us in our wrongdoing (or wrong thinking), it does not instruct us in righteousness. It effectively neutralizes the Scripture by mishandling, misspeaking, misinterpreting, and abbreviating it, so that all the profits it otherwise would have are lost, and the man of God can no longer be "equipped to do every good work." Beyond the argument already made that use of music for our own enjoyment does not constitute true, biblical worship, we are confronted with this matter of heresy. And it is heresy, however subtle and innocuous it may seem. It usually occurs, however, with omission of context, as Dawn has observed. Here is one of the more extreme examples in that not only is the Scripture taken out of context, it isn't even the entire source:

As for me and my house,
we will serve the Lord! Oh yeah!
As for me and my house,
we will serve the Lord!

The song then goes on to add these "stanzas,"

We have counted the cost,
we have made a choice,
we will follow our God
and obey His voice,
and for the rest of our lives,
we will serve the Lord.

We will not bow to another god,
we will have no other gods but You;
we will not serve two masters,
we surrender our lives to You. (sing last phrase three times)

Here's another:

Lord, we have heard of Your fame,
we stand in awe of Your wonderful deeds, O Lord;
(repeat)
Renew them in our day, renew them in our day.

In Your wrath, remember mercy,
in our time make them known.
Renew them in our day, renew them in our day.

That's it. That is all these songs have to say. Nowhere is the name of the Lord called upon as an invocation of power. Possibly this is presumed, but the psalmists never communicated this way, especially not in songs of praise or supplication. They always began with lengthy preambles expressing the worthiness of God for our praise; neither of these songs (and many more like them) do this. And it is fallacious to presume that our people have "matured" to the point that they don't need to be reminded of the greatness and worthiness of God and all His attributes.

The last comment I want to discuss: "...my greatest disagreement with those who advocate turning worship into the congregation's evangelistic tool is that this notion removes the responsibility of all the members for reaching out to their neighbors by being Church, by bearing the fruit of discipleship. Furthermore, this is not an individualistic responsibility, for good worship also forms a people whose way of life is a warrant for belief."

Dawn is addressing two points here: the purpose of community and, as at the beginning, the nature of community. She began in an earlier chapter discussing the indoctrinations of the media and other societal pressures to "think of yourself first," then make room for other agendas (maybe even God's, or the church's) if there is time. She picks it up here again as the manifestation of this "doctrine of self" in our mission life. Once worship was converted to an issue of personal preference, it was a simple matter for Satan to emasculate the force of the Gospel within the believers for evangelism. (Don't get me wrong, the Word will not go out and return void; but as we refuse to be bearers of the Good News, we forfeit on its blessing as we cease to be effective vessels.) Worship was already the easier thing to do; evangelism is not natural to--or easy for--anyone, so long as the flesh has any say. But if our opinions on worship are bred of narcissistic tendencies, how much easier it becomes for us to shrug off our second obligation. We break both great commandments at once.

The second point deals with the responsibility of the Church to do work as a community. God has not really wired any of us to be "Lone Rangers for Jesus;" a few can do good work alone, but none of God's work was meant for just a few. (And, in fact, no good think can be done apart from His empowerment.) After His resurrection, Jesus did not appear to His disciples privately and utter the Great Commission or Great Commandment in secret. He announced it to all at once, signifying their unity of purpose in Him. His method has not changed, but apparently ours has. Personally I find it very easy to try to tackle ministry on my own, and to some extent God favors me with small victories. But I cheat myself of participating in the larger movements--and blessings--of the Spirit when I play the loner. God has always meant for His work to be carried out by His people, not His persons. That concept is never expressed in the Bible, and Dawn insists it is high time we stopped behaving as if it were. We are a community of faith; let us act like it, and for the glory of the God who alone can enable it!